Miller v. Graham

3 S.C.L. 283
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 15, 1803
StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 283 (Miller v. Graham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. Graham, 3 S.C.L. 283 (S.C. 1803).

Opinion

But the couri were all of opinion, that the decision appealed from was right; ao.'i that a defen lant in an aciioti of slander, ought to be allow d ¡he benefit of bmh pleas : and that they are not more incompatible limn many other double pleas which are allowed. See llame", 356.

Present, Grimke, Waties, Johnson, Trezevant, and Bhe« Vard, Justices; Bax, J. absent. Mathis, for plaintiff. Branding, for defendant.

Motion discharged.

Note. Double pleas allowed. See 1 Sellon, 296, 297, and Barnes. Non est yáctem, and duress Barnes 359. Not guilty and a.tisfaction lb 349. Not guilty, son assault, and satisfaction, lb 352, Not guilty, and a justification, in trespass Ib 355,356,365. Not vuilty, and venefal release, where affidavit. Ib 351. Not guilty, and statute limitations. Ib. 889. Double pleas refused. ¡See 1 Sellon. 298. Non assumpsit generally, and a tender l B1 R.723. 3 VVils. 145. Non est factum, and solvit ad diem. B1 905. Non assumpsit, and a release Barnes, 328 Same allowed. Ib 347,348 Discretionary, notguihy, and a licence Ib. 351,864. Without affidavit lb 357. Not guilty, and jxistification. Ib. 876, Non est factum, and tender to part. 5 T. it. 98.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 S.C.L. 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-graham-sc-1803.